Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Bulk mailers throw monkey wrench in postal reform bill, Paul amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Bulk mailers throw monkey wrench in postal reform bill, Paul amendment

    "Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee were scheduled to approve a wide-ranging postal reform bill. But an amendment from Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), backed by the powerful mailing industry, to strike a plan allowing higher postal rates appeared to be gaining support. The committee tabled its deliberations at midday. Aides said the Baldwin amendment, along with another proposal from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to remove a federal ban on guns in post offices, would require more study.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...ba3_story.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ... a federal ban on guns in post offices...
    Many don't know this, but the ban on guns in post offices is a small crime. If they throw the book at you (which of course they probably will) it's 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. It's not the same as bringing a gun into a federal court house or something like that.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Many don't know this, but the ban on guns in post offices is a small crime. If they throw the book at you (which of course they probably will) it's 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. It's not the same as bringing a gun into a federal court house or something like that.
    Good to know !

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147

    Mr. Paul’s amendment failed on a 9-6 vote.

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Many don't know this, but the ban on guns in post offices is a small crime. If they throw the book at you (which of course they probably will) it's 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. It's not the same as bringing a gun into a federal court house or something like that.
    Do you have a citation for this?
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  6. #6
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,602
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Many don't know this, but the ban on guns in post offices is a small crime. If they throw the book at you (which of course they probably will) it's 30 days in jail and a $50 fine. It's not the same as bringing a gun into a federal court house or something like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Do you have a citation for this?
    39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

    "Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.

    "Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations or any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
    Well the 30 days seems to hold true but the $50 fine looks to be a "bit" low.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Well the 30 days seems to hold true but the $50 fine looks to be a "bit" low.
    That one Grapeshot posted is the first time I'd seen that. I don't know when the change occurred, or which is correct now. Here's an example of the only wording I've ever seen:
    http://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf from August 2007, if accurate.

    Individuals found guilty of violating these rules and
    regulations are subject to a fine of not more than $50
    or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.
    Last edited by MAC702; 02-11-2014 at 12:19 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  9. #9
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    That one Grapeshot posted is the first time I'd seen that. I don't know when the change occurred, or which is correct now. Here's an example of the only wording I've ever seen:
    http://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf from August 2007, if accurate.
    I've never put much stock in government posters or signs. I like to look up the law. You just never know what some moron might put into a poster or sign. The law books are a little more closely studied.

    For instance, most of the signs I see in Oregon that try to prohibit firearms in public buildings make no mention of the fact that CHL holders are exempt. Oh, and they almost ALL cite the definitions statute as the one which bans carry. So some moron printed up a sign somewhere and a bunch of other morons keep copying it. The door of the police station has the same incorrect wording and resulted in MarkedGuardian being cuffed and stuffed for a "Class C Felony". Only to be released half an hour later with the cops shaking their heads in disbelief that they had to let him go and he had NOT violated any law.....even though their door sign said he did.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    I've never put much stock in government posters or signs. I like to look up the law. You just never know what some moron might put into a poster or sign. The law books are a little more closely studied...
    I agree with that. I've seen the law many times, just happened to grab that poster on a quick search at the moment. So I still don't know when the change was made.

    So with this change, I'm wondering what the new maximum fine will be. I see nothing to label it as more than an infraction, so I'm thinking $5000.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  11. #11
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    39 CFR 232.1 - Conduct on postal property.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/39/232.1
    (p)(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to a fine as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3571 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both.
    Remember that bringing your dog onto postal property, even in your vehicle, is exactly the same (legally) as bringing a gun onto postal property (even in your vehicle).
    (j) Dogs and other animals, except those used to assist persons with disabilities, must not be brought upon postal property for other than official purposes.
    And if your driver's license or car registration are not currently valid, you can't drive on postal property.
    (k)(1) Drivers of all vehicles in or on property shall be in possession of a current and valid state or territory issued driver's license and vehicle registration, and the vehicle shall display all current and valid tags and licenses required by the jurisdiction in which it is registered.
    And if you're under the influence of any drug, including alcohol you can't be on postal property.
    There doesn't seem to be an exception for lawfully-prescribed drugs.
    (g)(1) A person under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug that has been defined as a “controlled substance” may not enter postal property or operate a motor vehicle on postal property.
    And they're allowed to "inspect" your property, including:
    (b)(1) Purses, briefcases, and other containers brought into, while on, or being removed from the property are subject to inspection.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    If I remember correctly there was a court decision in the last couple of years that made all of these restriction only valid in SECURED parking lots used by the postal service, not by customers.

    Anyone remember that case? I think it involved an employee who had his firearm inside his personal vehicle (and didn't sound like the one previously mentioned in this post).
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I just use Spooner mail. Oh wait the government hated competition and forced him out of business.

    I uses UPS as much as possible, pleasant help, quick service, and no hassles of dealing with a quasi government bureaucracy.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,147
    American Letter Mail Company 1844 - 1851

    USPS Publication 542 - Understanding the Private Express Statutes
    http://about.usps.com/publications/pub542/welcome.htm
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •